roundtable

Agent Review Panel

4–6 AI reviewers independently evaluate your code, plan, or docs, debate each other's findings, then a judge resolves disagreements. A Claude Code plugin that orchestrates structured multi-stance review. Each run costs roughly $3–$20 in Opus tokens and takes 6–15 minutes — built for high-stakes reviews, not routine code review.

Runs only on Claude Code surfaces (CLI, IDE extension, Desktop "Code" tab) and the Claude Agent SDK. Does not work on claude.ai web chat or the raw Anthropic API — see Surfaces & Requirements.

Quick Start

claude plugin marketplace add wan-huiyan/agent-review-panel
claude plugin install roundtable@agent-review-panel

Restart your Claude Code session — skills load at session start.

/plugin marketplace add wan-huiyan/agent-review-panel
/plugin install roundtable@agent-review-panel

Verify it loaded. In a fresh Claude Code session, type /roundtable:agent-review-panel with no arguments. The skill should introduce itself and ask what to review. If you get unknown command, see Troubleshooting. Migrating from an older install handle? See MIGRATION.md.

Use:

> Review this implementation plan from multiple perspectives: docs/my_plan.md

> /roundtable:agent-review-panel

Natural-language invocation also works ("red team this", "stress-test this design", "get a panel review of …").

What you get — three files written to your current working directory:

• review_panel_report.md — executive summary, consensus, judge-resolved disagreements, action items
• review_panel_process.md — verbatim "director's cut" of every reviewer's output
• review_panel_report.html — interactive dashboard with expandable issue cards, charts, and a panel gallery

See Sample output below for what a real report looks like.

When to use it — and when not

Use a panel for: high-stakes plans you'd want a second/third/fourth opinion on; security-sensitive code; architecture decisions that are expensive to reverse; docs that have to be right; "I'm too close to this — stress-test it."

Don't use a panel for (use a single review or /review instead): a quick look before pushing; type-error fixes; routine code review; addressing existing PR comments; "what does this code do?"; deployments; writing tests or docs from scratch.

The key signal is multiple independent perspectives — if one opinion would do, you're paying 4–6× more for nothing.

Why a panel, not a single reviewer?

Ask one reviewer "review this" and you get one perspective. It won't argue with itself, catch its own blind spots, or volunteer "I'm not sure about this."

The panel forces the same model to take multiple passes from assigned, divergent stances — Correctness Hawk, Security Auditor, Devil's Advocate, etc. — before they see each other's output. Then they debate, then a separate judge step resolves disputes against verified evidence. You get a deliberation, not a list:

Feasibility Analyst: "The data_available_through hardcoding is minor — it's documented."

Risk Assessor: "Disagree. If stale, the lookforward extends past actual data — model trains on incomplete outcomes — silent false-negative bias."

Feasibility Analyst (Round 2): "Valid point. I upgrade this to IMPORTANT."